Dawkins' deterministic idea
by KrauzeIf they ever find the guys that may have beat up professor Paul Mirecki, I would pay good money to see Richard Dawkins in the jury. In his answer to Edge's question, "What is your dangerous idea", he compares punishing criminals with beating a car that won't start, or whipping the sea for wrecking a ship.
But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment.
But the real interesting part comes at the end:
Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment. [My emphasis]
For years, Dawkins has preached the values of rationalism and the need to follow the evidence, even when it leads to uncomfortable conclusions. Yet here he is, explaining why he thinks adopting a certain position would be rational, yet acknowledging that he can't adopt it itself.
January 5th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Anyone else notice how stale the answers were to this year's edge question?
It seemed that the predominant response was variations on the "cutting edge" philosophies of Jacques Monod and Friedrich Nietzsche.
Yes, we get it, only "science" tells us the truth, that our very soul is an illusion, we are nothing but a contrivance of evolution, a survival machine for DNA imagining itself possessed of a soul and free will.
Comment by MatthewCromer — January 5, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Our Professor for the Public Misunderstanding of Science has gone and cut off the limb he sits on. (I wish him a healthy recovery.) If what Dawkins says is true about crime, it's also true about other decisions, so we quite legitimately change his statements thus:
"Any belief, however inaccurate, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment."
. . .
"Assigning error and fault in regard to beliefs regarding origins is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live."
What he's saying about conduct, in other words, also applies to beliefs. We are not responsible for them, they just happen to us. From that standpoint it's pretty hard for him to say it's better for us to believe what he does.
Comment by TomG — January 5, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Considering that if ID was true, we'd have to institute a theocracy and put critics in death camps, I'd say ID is the most dangerous idea.
Comment by Krauze — January 5, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Of course not. It would make it impossible to rail against those evil Christians :-/
Comment by Deuce — January 5, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
I think we have to realize that so much of all this stuff — what gets funded, who publishes what in SciAm, who gets invited to speak to the NYT, who is on the "Edge" is all about the human sociology of belief systems, following the herd, and not wanting to be laughed at.
After all, the received wisdom of "science" is often absurdly wrong.
The best approach is simply ignore the scoffers, focus on the interesting questions, and start looking. . .
Comment by MatthewCromer — January 5, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
What antecedent conditions led Dawkins to the conclusion that we don't have free will? What antecedent conditions impair his ability to believe it?
Comment by commander — January 5, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Hi Tom,
"What he's saying about conduct, in other words, also applies to beliefs."
At the risk of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I think determinism applies much better to beliefs than to behavior. I mean, where should I get my beliefs from, if not from arguments and observations of the world (plus a good dose of acquired presuppositions)? I certainly feel like I have more choice in whether to obey the law than in which beliefs to adopt.
Comment by Krauze — January 5, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
[...] s. He was recently asked to comment on his dangerous idea for a magazine called Edge. [HT: Telic Thoughts] His response is worth quoting: Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged inc [...]
Pingback by Verum Serum » Dawkins’ Dangerous Idea — January 5, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Hey, Krauze, there's a bit more to it than that, though it's kind of obscure at first. Presumably, while you feel more "choice" in deciding to obey the law than in what you believe, you feel that you have reasons for doing both. Keep in mind, the concept of free will isn't that we do things randomly. In fact, that would just be another form of determinism, from the standpoint of the person who's actions were being determined by chance events. The idea is that we do things for reasons - that our actual reasons cause us to do things. That's what underlies the concept of "choice" - to act for a reason. Dawkins is saying that no, that's an illusion, there's only material causes at work, not immaterial concepts like reasons, and your decision was determined by a chain of material causes, not by you (in fact, this view implies that there is no you, something Dawkins has been forthright with in other places). Your body and brain are just victims of programming, and would have taken a different action if the programming had been different. The problem is, this applies with equal force to the reasons you have for all your beliefs. You don't really have reasons for your beliefs, your brain is just a victim of its programming. There's no abstract standard of truth by which you can look at data, and decide (ie, choose) which beliefs best fit it, just as you can't decide your course of action. Hence, an argument that attacks the basis of free will also attacks rationality. Again, Dawkins is okay with even this when describing other people as passive meme machines, but wants to preserve rationality for himself.
Comment by Deuce — January 5, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
As they say, Dawkins is the gift who keeps on giving. Here's a guy who believes it is better to sexually molest a child than raise the child in a religious tradition. A guy who abandons science to peddle his hateful bigotry that raising a child in a religious tradition is child abuse. A guy who won't say one word about the terrorists who are attacking his own university for wanting to build a new science building. And now he gives us Clockwork Orange!
What begins with a death wish against God evolves into bigotry against religious people and ends up as a death wish against humanity. The more Dawkins opens his mouth, the more it becomes clear to me that his "truly scientific, mechanistic view" of the world is anti-human. On one hand, his world view prevents him from coming up with any good reason for thinking human life is more valuable that monkey life and here he feels rationally obligated to abandon the precious human value of responsibility. But is this just Dawkins's personal opinion or he is expressing the logical output of the "scientific, mechanistic" world view?
Krauze ends his blog on a very interesting note. It doesn't look like even Richard Dawkins can live according to the standards of the scientific, mechanistic world view. The lead barker fails the demands of his own religion. He wants us to rebel against our genes, but never tells us how a nervous system reacting to the antecedent conditions expressed through the system's physiology, heredity and environment can carry out such "rebellion." He doesn't tell us because he can't tell us. He just takes it on faith and expects us to do likewise. And here we can see that he just can't bring himself to embrace his "scientific, mechanistic view" as he irrationally clings to the myth of responsibility. What is so hilarious is that Dawkins becomes just like the religionists he hates. They have the myth of God and he has the myth of human responsibility. They can't let go of their gods and he can't let go of responsibility. They have their faith in an afterlife and he has his faith in our ability to create utopia by rebelling against our genes. His self-righteous preaching against religion is drenched in hypocrisy. He implodes before our eyes and takes his scientific mechanistic world view with him.
I wonder what juicy insights Dawkins will give us next?
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Mike,
Hey, don't blame Dawkins for his illogical and irrational views and statements. He can't help it, remember?
Comment by Douglas — January 5, 2006 @ 7:01 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
This is quite an admission from Dawkins. It has long been pointed out by others the problems with deterministic philosophies and I was quite suprised to see Dawkins arguing as such. WOW I thought — that's quite an admission frm Dawkins — I wonder if he'll follow through.
As he writes..
In essensce he is destroying the rational basis for real knowledge and morality yet he can't follow through and stop trying to be "rational" and "moral" like they mean something more then just "atoms" bouncing around in his head.
If everything in this universe is determinied as atheism dictates then everything is determined. There is no independance in any decision or thought or "exrepssion of understanding" that a person makes. Words are merely functional synonyms and rational arguments which presumse some sort of "independant judge" are meaningless. Everything; every thouhgt, every expression was essentially determined at the big bang.
So in the end why would you adpot a worldview that destroys morality and the inner world, knowing full well you cannot act consistently with it? Perhaps that is *reason* to abandon your metaphysics, given how it destroys something so much a part of human nature? Would Dawkins adopt a metaphysic which destroys the reality of an external world? If not, then why adopt a metaphysic that destorys the inner world of free will and morality?
Comment by Plump-DJ — January 5, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
If Dawkins is right, then he can't claim that it is better if a child is sexually abused than raised in a religious household. "Better" would be a meaningless term, as far as morals and such. Dawkins is like a major highway accident.
Comment by Douglas — January 5, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
I agree with Plump-DJ, this is a big admission on Dawkins' part.
I also think Mike Gene is right on. This statement is a gift to theists everywhere. In fact, I'd bet a lot of atheists back away from Dawkins because of this. I wrote something recently about the amorality of atheism and I can tell you first hand that a lot of atheists get very excercised at the suggestion.
Don't ge me wrong, atheists are good people. But as Dawkins' makes clear, they are good in spite of atheism not because of it.
Comment by Foyle — January 5, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Dawkins' Fawlty Logic
by Ken Brown Every year, Edge magazine asks numerous people of interest a single question (HT: Telic Thoughts). This year's question: What is your dangerous idea? Richard Dawkins' answer: Determinism. Not very unique, I know, but his explanation is n…
Trackback by Signs of the Times — January 5, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I once saw Dawkins at a lecture sponsored by a student group called S.A.N.E. (Students for a Non-Religious Ethos).
I asked him the question: "Is science committed to the doctrine that material things are the only things there are?"
He answered "I think science may well one day discover entities that are in some sense immaterial, but this doesn't excuse what some people are trying to do these days!"
Unfortunately I never got to ask my follow-up question "Could science ever discover immaterial *intelligent* entities?"
Comment by Omar — January 6, 2006 @ 12:00 am
January 6th, 2006 at 7:15 am
Richard Dawkins: ""I think science may well one day discover entities that are in some sense immaterial, but this doesn't excuse what some people are trying to do these days!"
He's not making any sense at all. According to him and his kind (species?), science deals only with the MATERIAL world, and cannot address things that are "immaterial" (their conveniently avoiding any real definition of "material" and "immaterial" not being of any consequence, of course). Now, he goes and contradicts himself and his comrades. Not only that, he fudges, saying these "entities" would be "IN SOME SENSE" immaterial. Now, what in the world would THAT mean? Is LIGHT "in some sense immaterial" How about "Dark Matter" - after all, it's never been actually seen or detected? Or maybe he's talking about ghosts who wear physical clothing. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which atheists and Evolutionists will go in order to delude themselves into thinking they have been able to deny God's existence and/or activity.
Comment by Douglas — January 6, 2006 @ 7:15 am
January 6th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Hmmm. 17 comments and not one from a critic. Dawkins really has become like that embarassing old uncle.
Comment by MikeGene — January 6, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
I know, it's eerie. I keep thinking at least Art has to show up.
Comment by Deuce — January 6, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
January 7th, 2006 at 10:20 am
One of the things I find interesting (and odd) about Dawkins is how he pontificates nonsense like this from his high and lofty chair at Oxford and just expects that everyone ought to accept his every utterance as coming from Mt. Olympus or something. BUT, he refuses to engage in debate with those who take an opposing view…especially when it comes to ID. He claims he won't debate ID proponents because he doesn't want to make it appear as if ID has anything legitimate to debate or discuss scientifically. My take is that the real reason is because Dawkins knows he'd get his clocked cleaned in such a debate.
Amazing how Dawkins and those of his ilk, who claim to hold reason and rationality is such high regard, so quickly abandon it when it comes to defending their own drivel.
Comment by DonaldM — January 7, 2006 @ 10:20 am
January 7th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
MikeGene says:
Hmmm. I wonder if it's a coincidence that the comments expressed here by ID proponents are so strikingly uniform in their contempt for materialism?
So, let's look at what Dawkins is saying.
Our actions are the result of two possible kinds of factors. Deterministic factors that are exclusively dependent on our environment, and a random factors (e.g., quantum indeterminacy) that are independent of the past.
The logical conclusion from this is that there is no absolute morality, and that "blame" and "retribution" are reproductively advantageous desires that evolution has wired into us. There is no absolute "ought," only an "is."
While there might not be anything we absolutely ought to do, we know empirically that there are certain things we want to do.
So, if I determine that a meteorite is going to hit your house, I may inform you that you "ought to move out of its way." However, I'm really saying that, "with some probability, you must move out of its way, if you want to live."
Of course, there is no absolute reason why you shouldn't stay home and become part of a pretty impact crater. In that case, presumably you were destined to become part of a crater. Yet, knowing that you are a not much more than a deterministic machine doesn't change the fact that you are a deterministic machine that doesn't like getting vaporized by meteorite impacts. And this knowledge doesn't preclude you from using my scientific arguments to achieve an emotional benefit by evacuating the house. So much for the supposed pointlessness of rational argument among deterministic agents.
Your criticism of Dawkins worldview comes from what you perceive to be the logical conclusion of that view, namely, some form of moral anarchy. Yet, this criticism is not only an illogical projection of the worldview, it is also an exclusively emotional argument against its truth.
First, the illogical projection. Whether the evil we see is materialistic or not, we must still make war against it if we are to satisfy our own desires for a better life. Materialism doesn't alter that war.
Second, the emotional grounding. Whether you like what you perceive as the the eventual consequences of materialism has no bearing on its truth. I'm confident that you would apply the same criteria to any materialist's dismissal of theism on the grounds that its consequences would appear unpleasant to him. In other words, I suspect that we all care enough about the truth to discover the truth though it may be unpleasant.
And what do the supernaturalists offer instead of materialism? Nothing coherent. If our actions are guided by unseen, external forces, then those forces too are either deterministic or random. The only escape is to deny the power of reason to analyze the world around us. To close our eyes, click our heels and wish that true and false were not the only options.
Naturally, I offer you no reason why you ought not do this. If you want to.
Comment by doctor(logic) — January 7, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
January 7th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Actually it's making war against evil that is the greatest source of evil. Look at all the great causes of evil over the past century - communism, fascism, islamic fundamentalism just for starters. All were construed as wars against evil, the infidel, the exploitative bourgois, etc.
It's the whole notion of battling and conquering others because they are "unsaved", bad, stupid, or otherwise less than a particular in-group that has to go. That even applies to Telists vs. RMNSers, painful as it is for me to admit it. After all, there is very little difference between a fundamentalist Christian dogmatist and a fundamentalist Neo-Darwinian dogmatist — both absolutely know they are right, both filter everything they see through their belief system, both want to tear down their opponents in the interest of "truth".
Comment by MatthewCromer — January 7, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
January 7th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
MatthewCromer,
"After all, there is very little difference between a fundamentalist Christian dogmatist and a fundamentalist Neo-Darwinian dogmatist "” both absolutely know they are right, both filter everything they see through their belief system, both want to tear down their opponents in the interest of 'truth'."
I think you forgot to add "fanatic", as in "fundamentalist Christian fanatic dogmatist". This adds the necessary implication of irrationality and emotionalism, whereas there are plenty of "fundamentalist Christian dogmatists" who are quite rational, reasonable, and civil. (I myself am one.)
By the way, for the record, NO genuine Christian goes around "battling and conquering" others because they are "'unsaved', bad, [or] stupid". Ugliness and poor taste in fashion are other matters, though.
Comment by Douglas — January 7, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
January 7th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Hi Doctor logic,
"I wonder if it's a coincidence that the comments expressed here by ID proponents are so strikingly uniform in their contempt for materialism?"
I wrote the post that started this thread, and I didn't express any contempt for materialism. Instead, I pointed to the irony of Dawkins, who for years has presented himself as the spearhead of rationalism, but is unable to accept a view he thinks is rationable.
Comment by Krauze — January 7, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
January 7th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
DocLogic writes:
I must strongly disagree with your analysis, doc. On an atheistic worldview (and that is what Dawkins promotes), everything, absolutely everything must be explained in terms of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy acting through chance and necessity (or thier combination) over whatever eons of time. That includes any concepts we might invent of morality, or goodness, or evil, for such notions or concepts are themselves the end result of the very same blind, purposeless forces. There is no getting around it. It does no good to say that what we call "logic" and "reason" somehow interrupt that process, for logic and reason are themselves also the end result of this long chain of blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy acting through chance and necessity or their combination.
On that view, the term evil simply has no meaning. At most means, "something I strongly dislike or even hate", but there is not the least bit of objective meaning to the term, because there is likewise no objective standard of goodness against which to measure or compare any notion or concept of "evil" we might have. Contrary to what you claim here, doc, this is most assuredly not an "exclusively emotional argument against its truth", but a clear, concise understanding of the actual logical conclusion of an atheistic worldview taken all the way to its logical conclusions. There's nothing "emotional" about it. It is pure logic and reason.
DocLogic continues:
It isn't that the consequences of a matarialistic (or atheistic) worldview are "unpleasant" in some way. It's that if such a worldview really is the way things are, then we humans have no basis for morality, calling anything good or evil, or even trusting the deliverances of our cognitive faculties as producing truth in some way. This was the point C.S. Lewis drove home in his book "Miracles" (especially chapters 2 and 3 if I recall), and also Alvin Plantinga in his "Warrant and Proper Function" and in "Warranted Christian Belief".
doclogic continues:
The incoherency is thinking that materialism (or something like it) can be the basis for a coherent worldview.
Also, if it is the case that some of our actions are guided by some unseen supernatural force, it does not follow from that those supernatural forces are either deterministic or random. There no reason to suppose they are not freely acting agents. Your reasoning here commits the fallacy of the false dilemma.
Comment by DonaldM — January 7, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
January 7th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Douglas,
Why do you choose to be a dogmatist? Do you think it is possible to be a Christian without adhering to dogma which tells you what you should believe?
Comment by MatthewCromer — January 7, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
January 7th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
DonaldM,
I totally agree with you on these points. Good and evil are both subjective, both determined for each of us by physics and chance.
It doesn't change my argument one jot.
That we humans have desire, that we calculate and perceive (physically or spiritually), these are empirical facts. There's no question of our reasoning "interrupting" anything. As determined by chance and past events, our reasoning becomes part of the physical process that is the world. To say that human reasoning makes no difference to the world is as senseless as saying that radioactivity makes no difference to the world.
Incorrect. We have a subjective basis for doing so.
I don't think so.
Convince me that the term free has any meaning. Either actions depend on past history in a well-defined way or else they don't. Deterministic or random. What other logical option is there?
Comment by doctor(logic) — January 7, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
January 7th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Matthew,
I use the term "make war" figuratively. If one considers ignorance a form of evil, then establishing a public education system qualifies as making war on evil.
Comment by doctor(logic) — January 7, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
January 8th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
When " there is thought which is dangerous you thinks, is it what? "
2006 year new year 2005 December put on the nose front 31st, the door which is shut was opened and was presented one which it is asked floated in the scientists.
And the scientists put out, ' the imaginative power of the thoughts which are dangerous '
http://www.edge.org/
Retribution as a moral principle is compatible with human behaviour.
But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not?–Dawkins
Interesting question. Unanswered. Short answer: No.
Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions?–Dawkins
Some humans may find it impossible to accept such conclusions on logical and scientific grounds.
My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car."”Dawkins
Your dangerous idea is that we laugh at humanity's bestiality. Dawkins dangerous idea is dangerous because its stupid.
Rovelli, Shapiro, and Miller had more interesting things to say.
Comment by Rock — January 8, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
January 8th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution"¦
Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour.–Dawkins
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_...
Let's all stop beating Basil's carRICHARD DAWKINS
[Sorry. Chopped off the top.]
Comment by Rock — January 8, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
January 8th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
doclogic:
It changes everything about your argument if something other than chance and necessity or their combination is at work in the cosmos. That something else is intelligence. Intelligence is meaningless if the ability to choose between options isn't part of it.
Reason is the application of intelligence to presented options. If it isn't, and reason is nothing more than another process of either chance or necessity, then reason doesn't mean a thing and we certainly have no basis for believing that any of the deliverences of reason provide us with true knowledge. How can anything be considered true knowlege whose source is either random, or deterministic? It's a pretty poor basis for an epistemology to say the least.
Subjectivism does not provide a basis for morality. Morality is the choosing of one action over another because on action is deemed better, or good than another. But the concepts of better or good or bad or worse have no meaning in a subjective world because there is no standard by which to measure those things. Something isn't better or good or bad or worse merely because I say it is.
To use the old tried and true example: in a subjective world, no one, absolutely no one, can say that any of the actions taken by the Nazis against the Jews in WWII were wrong, or bad or evil. All anyone can say is that they personally didn't like what the Nazis did, or they were outraged by it personally, or they feel it was evil, and the like. But to say what the Nazis did was evil is to make a meaningless statement…in a subjective world.
The other logical choice is free choice. That is what intelligence means. Otherwise any thoughts we have are either that way because of determinism (necessity) or they are entirely random (chance) and therefore devoid of any meaning…or at least any meaning that we could discover.
Comment by DonaldM — January 8, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
January 8th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
DonaldM,
Deterministic intelligence still makes choices. Why would you think that it doesn't?
You still haven't defined free choice. It appears to mean the thing that makes intelligence "meaningful," but that doesn't help since I don't know what you mean by "meaningful" in this context.
The way you have described it, free chioce sounds like a mystery device you have invented to save yourself from both determinism and randomness.
What conceivable experiment could be performed do to detect free choice?
What is "true knowledge"
Knowledge is often described as justified, true belief. Why is this incompatible with determinism?
I think you're begging the question here. You are defining good and bad as absolute good and absolute bad, effectively denying that they can exist in subjective form.
I would not be justified in claiming that you had no conception of good and bad in art just because you like Picasso and not Renoir. You know good from bad in art, it's just different from my good and bad. The subjectiveness of good and bad doesn't make them meaningless because they are well-defined.
It is not meaningless, for you have nicely explained what it means:
Why is this not enough? Postulating that there is an absolute good doesn't seem to make any practical difference in the world. It doesn't prevent people from disagreeing with you, and it doesn't change a man's willingness to kill or be killed for what he subjectively believes is right.
Comment by doctor(logic) — January 8, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
January 9th, 2006 at 1:23 am
Dr Logic:
"postulating that there is an absolute good doesn't seem to make any practical difference in the real world… it doesn't change a man's willingness to kill or be killed for what he subjectively believes is right"
Absolute baloney! Consider abortion, as one who believes in an objective right and wrong I wouldn't consider it an option (except perhaps if the unborn baby threatened the life of the mother) even if subjectively it felt the right thing to do (e.g I don't have enough time or money to care for this baby so it would be wrong to bring it into the world. Or it has Downs Syndrome and it seems cruel and wrong to bring it into the world).
So what difference does a belief in subjective over an objective right and wrong have? Consider that the liberal progressive mind believes that meaning is found in quality of life while one that believes in an objective right and wrong believes in the sanctity of life.
These two fundamentally different starting points also illustrate why there is such heat when it comes to debating cloning and stem cell research as well as euthanasia.
Comment by willo — January 9, 2006 @ 1:23 am
January 9th, 2006 at 2:38 am
doctor(logic):
Free choice has been a category of explanation for at least as long as "determinism" and "randomness," and was hardly invented to avoid unpleasant implications. The fact that it cannot be reduced to either of these does not prove it doesn't exist; rather it suggests that this is a false dichotomy.
What need is there for an experiment? Is something only true if it can be verified in the lab? Is there any experiment that could confirm or deny the existence of love? Is love therefore non-existent?
Moreover, if science has been defined to look only for "chance and necessity" then one can hardly use the conclusions of this science to claim that chance and necessity are the only things that exist.
Does postulating that there is an objective world outside our minds make any difference in the practice of science? Would our experiments come out differently if we were living in a dream world? Who knows, but science must assume that there is a world outside of us in order to even begin its inquiry. Otherwise scientific disagreements could not, even in principle, be decided.
Likewise, moral discourse only makes sense if there is an objective standard outside our minds. You can reject that such a standard exists, but to do so means giving up moral discourse. Then all that is left is force - might makes right. Perhaps that is the kind of universe we live in, but why should we accept that presupposition?
Comment by Ken — January 9, 2006 @ 2:38 am
January 9th, 2006 at 11:52 am
willo,
Talk about baloney!! There are liberal progressives who believe in absolute morality, just as you do. And their morality differs from yours. If there were an absolute morality, who is to say that it matches your own?
Living according to a subjective morality doesn't necessarily mean living "in the now" or according to one's personal desires. A subjective sense of right and wrong may still compel one to act in a way that is inconsistent with personal self-interest.
Incorrect. This has nothing to do with objective morality. Two differing subjective points of view (e.g., yours and mine) will generate just as much heat.
Comment by doctor(logic) — January 9, 2006 @ 11:52 am
January 9th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Ken,
That the idea has been around along time doesn't grant it any credibility.
Let's say that determinism means that the output depends on the input in a well-defined way. If a function is non-deterministic then it depends on the input in a random fashion. What other option do you see?
The only other option I see is the abandonment of consistency.
Is there any experiment that could confirm of deny the existence of gastronomic taste?
We have personal, emotional experiences of love. We see behaviors in others that we regard as consistent with love. Yet, love is still subjective. No two love affairs are the same, and sometimes we are surprised by the things people do to express their love. Love is a very broad category of behaviors with a rather fuzzy definition. And fuzzy things exist, too.
Not that I rule out the possibility that neuroscience will one day be able to perceive love, but I expect that love will be just as fuzzy neuro-scientifically as it is intuitively.
Science has very few assumptions. It assumes consistency, so that empirical propositions cannot be simultaneously true and false. It also assumes that there are natural laws and regularities to the universe. Which would you like to reject?
There's a world of difference between objective scientific reality and objective morality. The reason why science works is that you can do the same experiment as me and get the same answer. Not so for moral questions.
Moral discourse is political discourse, and public moral codes are social contracts. We demand that social contracts protect not only ourselves but those we regard as kin. Today, we recognize persons of other races, dispositions, and species, and we refuse to sign any social contract that doesn't protect them.
And it's interesting that you should bring up "might makes right", when that is the very foundation of morality in Western religious tradition.
What difference does it make? I intend to live by and fight for my subjective moral code, just as you do. The difference is that you think your code is written in the stars. 97% of the time, we'll be standing side-by-side, fighting for the same cause.
In the end, it always comes down to might makes right, live and let live, or enlightened self-interest, preferably in reverse order.
Comment by doctor(logic) — January 9, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
January 9th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
doctor(logic):
If "determined" means simply "capable of resulting in only one outcome" and "non-determined" means "capable of resulting in more than one outcome" ("contingent"), then clearly there are no other options. But contigency is not equivalent with randomness. For instance, letters can be arranged in numerous patterns, but there is a difference between TJJKHKWASKD and I LOVE YOU. Both are contingent, but one is random, the other is not.
The difference is a specification, a meaning. The ability to choose to express a meaning or not, or to express this meaning or that meaning, constitutes agency - free will. (Agency can be present in other, simpler ways as well, such as the ability to choose to go left or right.) Of course its possible that no such thing exists - that our common experience is an illusion - but this is hardly a logical necessity.
Where did you get the idea that I would reject either one of these? Assuming that there are consistent natural laws in the universe, and assuming that the interactions of such laws consitute all that exists, are two very different things. If science restricts itself to investigate only what can be reduced to law, then it cannot be used as evidence that only laws exist. That would be like conducting an investigation that only studies women, and then using its conclusions to claim that only women exist.
Are such "persons of other races, dispositions, and species" inherently deserving of recognition, or only deserving of recognition if we choose to give it to them? If social contract is the only standard of moral discourse, then it is meaningless to claim that slavery or genocide are wrong in a society that accepts them. Yet I suspect that you believe these things are truly evil, and not just "bad taste." All reform depends on a prior assumption that a standard of morality exists independently of any and all social contracts. Even if you define that standard as nothing more than the inherent dignity of all persons, "inherent dignity" presupposes an objective morality.
Comment by Ken — January 9, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
January 9th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
I'm sorry but the baloney meter has just hit the red zone!
Doc Logic said, "postulating that there is an absolute good doesn't seem to make an practical difference in the world… it doesn't change a man's willingness to kill or be killed"
Question. Who were the movers and shakers in the last century or so who pushed for abortion and euthanasia? Were they conservative Christians or any other conservative religious group committed to an objective morality? No! They were liberal progressive relativists.
People like Margaret Sanger founder of Planned parenthood, Alan Guttmacher one of Planned Parenthood's most influentual figures and also a member of the board of directors of the Euthanasia Educational Council. Or H.G Wells one of the founders of the British Voluntary Euthanasia Society! (the list could go on and on but I think the point is made)
And who were and are the ones who, on the whole rile against abortion and euthanasia, well just ring up a pro-life group or an anti euthanasia society and do a survey. I'm betting the overwhelming majority will believe in an objective right and wrong.
To be sure you can hide in exceptions to the rule. But the truth is a belief in objective morals - good and bad, right and wrong, makes a massive difference to ones "willingness to kill or be killed". And abortion, euthanasia and cloning are three clear examples of this. An unwillingness to concede this point demonstrates you come to the table with a closed mind.
Comment by willo — January 9, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
January 9th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Willo:
How 'bout a little tact? That kind of rhetoric isn't going to convince anyone.
Comment by Ken — January 9, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
January 9th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Cheers Ken I'll tone it down, apologies Doc.
Comment by willo — January 9, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
January 9th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Thanks.
Comment by Ken — January 9, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
January 10th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
doclogic:
Because determinism only provides the illusion of choice. If the choice is real, then determinism is the illusion. Determinism, as C.S. Lewis pointed out, is irrational.
If this really were true, it would be a sad state of affairs. As I pointed out before, in such a world, no one has any basis whatsoever for saying that the Nazis were evil or that Pol Pot was a good man or that Sadam Hussein's slaughter of his own people was an atrocity. All of these are equally good (or equally bad) depending merely on someone's individual point of view.
Comment by DonaldM — January 10, 2006 @ 9:50 pm
January 10th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Willo and DonaldM,
I'm sorry to say that doctor(logic) has been banned, so he will no longer be able to respond to your comments in this forum.
Comment by Ken — January 10, 2006 @ 10:32 pm